In March, 2007, Al Gore testified to Congress and presented a ten-point plan for climate and energy policy. Point five of ten:
5.) Impose a moratorium on construction of any new coal-fired power plant not compatible with carbon capture and sequestration. (emphasis mine)
Dave Roberts at Grist provides commentary on each point, offering "Wowzer," in response to point five. But what does "compatible with" mean? Just six months later, he takes John Edwards to task for only requiring that plants be "compatible" in this way.
Edwards would [only] require that all new coal plants be compatible with sequestration....but he would not require them to actually sequester their emissions. (emphasis in original)
Ooops.
In between Gore's testimony and Edwards being called out, Gore organized Live Earth, and invited the world's leading climate scientist, James Hansen, to speak on stage. It's not clear Hansen enjoyed Live Earth. (pdf)
A fundamental issue arose, because the "Live Earth" pledge had a waffle-worded
statement about coal plants, which implied new coal-fired power plants were o.k. if it was claimed that sometime in the future they would be fitted out for carbon capture and sequestration. Gore’s people confirmed that this was the intended statement of their "energy experts". When I explained the distinction to Al Gore, he immediately agreed that, by a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants, he meant the same thing that I did: a real moratorium. This is a case where such leadership is essential.
Since there are no coal-fired power plants that can capture and securely sequester their emissions, there is a simpler way to talk about what kind of moratorium on coal-fired power plants we need. What we need is..wait for it...a moratorium on...coal-fired power plants. We need a period of delay on any new coal-fired power plants, until the carbon capture and storage (or "sequestration") technology, CCS, has been proven (in specially-permitted pilot projects focusing specifically on CCS).
So, until further notice--in the short term--"we have to have a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants." 9 minutes 33 seconds in:
Two days ago, I was on a conference call with Dr. Hansen. Someone asked him what the most important thing to do is, what can we personally do to help stabilize climate, to "answer the call to action"--what is the most important lifestyle change?
Hansen's answer was unequivocal. Take part in the political process. Help make our democracy real. Hold our candidates accountable.
But how should we take part in the political process? How can we hold the candidates accountable?
In May, Hansen commented on his own experience communicating with governors in coal states. (Re Tim Kaine as a potential VP candidate for Obama, he wrote: "Heaven forefend.") Here's what he had to say then (my strike-through edits based on analysis above):
Ask [the candidates] point blank if they support an immediate moratorium on new dirty-coal power plants and phase-out of existing dirty-coal power plants (none of them has, as yet). Ask publicly and broadcast the response.
So that's what I'm going to do. 350 times before the election, I'm going to call Obama and ask him if he will support a moratorium on new coal power plants.(I'm not going to call McCain, cause, call me closed-minded, I'm just not interested in his response.)
Why 350 times, you ask?